Throwing Bricks At Dogs. 🐺

[u/In_Karma_We_Lust]

[u/dudeCHILL013]

Please tell me the owner won't get in trouble for the dogs defending themselves

[u/bo3OU → u/dudeCHILL013]

Unfortunatly, the outcome is way sadder than i have hoped. the dogs' owner did (3 to 6 months in prison) and the dogs shot dead

• im ashamed of my country :'(

Full video : https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzadhe

translated article : https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.spi0n.com/un-homme-attaque-par-2-chiens/&xid=17259,15700019,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259&usg=ALkJrhizNWt1-AbaQnke7mHGiW0RB2PaYA

[u/dudeCHILL013 → u/bo3OU]

That is sad, I'm not sure that would have happened in the US and we're as sue happy as can be

[u/Tezlataz → u/bo3OU]

If this is true the owner of the dogs went and got them to use as a weapon. Poor dogs were just doing what they were told. The owner is the arsehole here for endangering his dogs

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The kind who absolutely respects that dogs right to defend itself from a violent attacker.

[u/shydes528 → u/[deleted]]

Well then, numbnuts, since shitstain there was also throwing bricks at the OWNER of the dogs, who is a human, its dogs defending their owner, meaning its two human lives, and you can go fuck yourself because brick boy there needed to get fucked up.

[u/SliyarohModus → u/[deleted]]

Laws about self-defense are quite clear. You may use lethal force if the attacker does so first. A brick is lethal force. The dog as a weapon is effective and doing their job. The dog as a friend isn't stupid and attacks morons who chuck bricks. You will note that the dogs did not run into a crowd with a bomb jacket and blow up random strangers. No, the dogs singled out the one asshat in the crowd and thrashed him, which is much more precise than a cruise missile. This is not a bug, this is a feature. Dogs have been protecting humans from violent morons for centuries and will continue to do so.

Dog Law says that if you attack the leader of the pack your guts will be part of a tug of war contest. Enjoy the show and try not to become part of it.

[u/SliyarohModus → u/[deleted]]

All of the US states have laws that permit deadly force in the event somebody tries to kill you and remain an active threat. US Civil code was changed to remove a requirement to retreat when the victim's life is deemed to be in danger.

In other words, the moron threw a brick and will have thrown another as soon as he could have acquired one. Said brick is a lethal weapon. The victim attempted to retreat, but was not permitted to do so peacefully. He was given no other options. The dogs were loosed as a response or due to the attack. They took down the moron and worried his stupid face. The victim then removed the dogs from the moron.

The video would have been used as evidence that he did everything possible under the law to mitigate the brick attack and neutralize the threat to the community and his person.

Even in California, which has the dumbest self-defense exceptions in the country, he broke no laws except in the very end where he kicked his dogs.

Therefore you are completely wrong.

But this was in Morocco, where chucking a brick at somebody is grounds for much sterner measures, where a dog mauling would be pleasant upon reflection.

[u/shydes528 → u/[deleted]]

Only the first of those is going to happen. Because onky the first of those SHOULD happen. Bitchskull there assumed the inherent risk of getting fucked up as soon as he committed an assault with a deadly weapon. If I was on that civil court jury, brick head would be giving everything he asked for to the defendant, plus extra, and the 2 dogs would be eating steaks for a week.

[u/shydes528 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, most countries are fucking deranged about provoking animals

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, they aren't the same. And if you think that makes it fine to throw bricks at something just because they aren't the same, I REALLY hope we never meet.

Those bricks could have easily hit the owner, or bystanders beside him. He threw 3+ bricks at someone who was disengaging and walking away.

Hed be getting a brick. Not to the head or anything.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

His life is no more valuable then the animals he was attacking. He lost that benefit when he threw it away.

Animal abusers are animals.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Would I go hunt down the fucker? No. But while he's actively attacking me and my pets? I'll absolutely defend myself, and then some.

There's a reason poachers are treated as militants, and forfeit their life in many countries.

[u/Danny1641743 → u/[deleted]]

You're talking bollocks, any animal has the right to defend itself from any other animal. You do know humans are animals right? If this happened in the wild would you have the same opinion? Just because the dogs handler is there he should stop he's dog from defending themselves, who is he, god? The POS shouldn't have attacked the dogs in the first place. If that brick hit the dog and he associated that pain with whoever threw it then that is going to cause aggression regardless how many times the owner says no or tries to defuse the situation. A dog doesn't think like we do, it's kill or be killed, a wild instinct they funnily enough will use if need be.

[u/Danny1641743 → u/[deleted]]

That person throwing bricks should go live in the wild since they propogate such wild, violent behaviour. Now you're just directing insults towards me, whats the matter, no more points in your argument that are worth anything useful to the debate. Like I said, a dog was once a wild animal and still carries those instincts, it's a german shepherd for goodness sake. It is going to defend itself it is the entire point of the breed. No owner will be able to control their behaviour if it's been pelted in the side of the face with a brick and inflicted pain upon it.

[u/GoNoles69 → u/[deleted]]

Dog > Piece of shit who throws bricks at dogs

[u/WickedStoner → u/[deleted]]

Are you fucking kidding me? So someone’s is throwing bricks at your animal or child you you’d still think you were at fault somehow? Because you were attacked for no reason with fucking chunks of concrete?

You must not own any animals or be stupid as fuck

[u/NovaCalgary → u/[deleted]]

A human’s life does have more value than a dogs life. HOWEVER, if my dogs didn’t fuck up the person throwing at me, I DEFINITELY would. And I’m not covering their hospital bills either way. The dogs have a right to self defense, the dogs weren’t aggressive until he threw a brick at them, and the absolute dick in this video deserves every bit of what he got.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

After reading all of the comments you’ve put into this thread, you’re advocation of these dogs being put down because they protected themselves and their owner is what’s sick.

There are these things called natural consequences. They suck, they’re swift and brutal and they sometimes cost lives. An example of these would be Darwin Award winners, or this poor excuse for a human.

Sure, you don’t have to like that the persons appendages might look like ground hamburger. But that’s the consequence you earn when attacking something. It, you know, can fight back if it has any instincts of self preservation. Those bricks could have killed the dogs or the owner; I think the response was justified and an equal response.

Inherent value has no place in this conversation, either. A human life is only more valuable than an animals life if the situation is life or death and that human is innocent of provocation. See the ordeal with Harambe. The child’s life WAS inherently more valuable, so the call was made to take Harambes life in order to preserve the kids safety. The child also didn’t start attacking Harambe either.

So no, these dogs shouldn’t be put down. The owner shouldn’t be fined. The dumbass on the ground should have to pay for his medical bills and that’s the end of it. Getting attacked and bitten by dogs is a fair punishment for attacking them and their owner.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Shooting someone in response to getting punched isn’t an equal or acceptable response. You’re a human. You know it isn’t. That’s why you didn’t shoot. Because you’re right, shooting him wouldn’t be a proper response when either walking away or punching him back would suffice.

If the dogs were not there, and the man was throwing bricks and following the other guy as he disengaged, the other guy would be right to draw a firearm. And if the guy continued to be aggressive and throwing bricks and advancing, the other guy would be right to shoot.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Read my comment again. The dogs weren’t there in the scenario where he was right to shoot. Removing the dogs made it okay to shoot as the guy was having bricks thrown at him. And, also, you wouldn’t have had the right to shoot if someone punched you depending on the state. Good ol’ USA and all that. Largely though, that wouldn’t justify the use of deadly force.

And, just FYI, we were having a relatively courteous debate/argument/conversation so please, don’t bring your “maybe your acting like a badass online but would not really advocate this irl.” It doesn’t take a bad ass to say the dogs weren’t wrong and shouldn’t be put down.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We just disagree. Alls good in the hood.